Political Atmosphere of World without Communism, Fascism & Zionism

Actually, you were.
I am sorry for not making my writing abundantly clear to you. I meant "pressure" not in the form of direct meddling but ideological pressure.

And considering how life was hardly any less "bleak, but () short" in the Soviet Union with its safety net, I have to doubt your alusion that longevity and social happiness only happen with a welfare state.
Well, I had picture of Dickensian England in my mind when I wrote this statement, but it could be pessimism taking the best of me. More likely it could be as Russia or Ukraine today. Nobody goes around really hungry, but gap between haves and have-nots is huge.

Actually, we do. Labor and social reform groups had been gaining ground for decades beforehand, and the chances of them suddenly losing all attraction because there's no hated enemy who's doing it is about as likely as water running uphill.
Again, you're piyching ideological dogmas against hard cold facts. Every Western labor leader OTL had to fight accusations of being a commie. Most documents from the time when labor fought for safety net tells us about their fascination (as misguided as it could be) with Soviet model. Those are facts. How would it all progress without Soviet example (and with hard anti-Soviet hysteria, fueled by unending bloody war in what was USSR, devouring many lives of Western soldiers) remains pure speculation.

"Hard facts" tend to vary from place to place. Please prove how European welfare has deteriorated "lighting-fast" since the Cold War.
Reaganomics, Thatcherism, tightening in Germany, Sarkozy reforms. You need to really shild yourself from news in last 1/4 of a century to miss it.

While I would hardly put false-flag terrorism as beyond the capabilities or will of any western intelligence agencies, are we going to see any sort of supporting evidence for this? Such as which terrorist attacks are alleged to have been false-flag, or who set this group up when, and how long did they operate?
Reading before answering helps from time to time. Google on Operation Gladio.
 
I am sorry for not making my writing abundantly clear to you. I meant "pressure" not in the form of direct meddling but ideological pressure.
Well, I had picture of Dickensian England in my mind when I wrote this statement, but it could be pessimism taking the best of me. More likely it could be as Russia or Ukraine today. Nobody goes around really hungry, but gap between haves and have-nots is huge.
Or it could be more like the 60's, just without the sublime terror of the world potentially ending at any minute. Industrial Revolution =/= post-WW1. Industrial Revolution =/= pre-WW1 either, especially considering the Progressive movement of the pre-war era that was in no small part harmed by WW1 crackdowns.

Seriously, "it could be like the Russia or Ukraine of today" is a rather weak argument, when the Ukraine and Russia of today are only like that because they went through decades of communist economy, that special brand of corruption that communist economies generate in the black market, and then lost the biggest ideological conflict of the century. None of which would happen in this world, because there would be no communism or fascism.

Or rather, should I rephrase your argument like "in a world without communism, the entire world is going to look like it just spent decades under the occupation an oppressive, economically incompetant communist police state." Now ask yourself, did I really change anything from what you suggested?

Again, you're piyching ideological dogmas against hard cold facts. Every Western labor leader OTL had to fight accusations of being a commie. Most documents from the time when labor fought for safety net tells us about their fascination (as misguided as it could be) with Soviet model. Those are facts. How would it all progress without Soviet example (and with hard anti-Soviet hysteria, fueled by unending bloody war in what was USSR, devouring many lives of Western soldiers) remains pure speculation.
How could there be progress? Easily enough. There wouldn't be accusations of being a Soviet plant for politicians seeking reforms, there wouldn't be the mass witch hunts of any person with views more liberal than the norm, and reformists can have plenty of other justifications and reasons other than "the fucking commies are doing it." Again, you're falling into the fallacy that because the Soviets did it first, everyone else who did it was inspired by and only by them.
Reaganomics, Thatcherism, tightening in Germany, Sarkozy reforms. You need to really shild yourself from news in last 1/4 of a century to miss it.
I would not call those lightning, nor would I call them total. Especially when Reaganomics was "spend more, tax less, and revenues will increase" not "kill welfare once and for all." You have quite the taste for hyperbole.
Reading before answering helps from time to time. Google on Operation Gladio.
I see a couple of conspiracy sites based on circumstancial evidence and not enough "hard fact." Try again, or at least show me a 'better' one.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, "it could be like the Russia or Ukraine of today" is a rather weak argument, when the Ukraine and Russia of today are only like that because they went through decades of communist economy, that special brand of corruption that communist economies generate in the black market, and then lost the biggest ideological conflict of the century. None of which would happen in this world, because there would be no communism or fascism.
I thought I made you a concession by not reviving ghosts of Latin America, Philipines, thailand and other countries which never had misfortune of being communist but could show nothing for it. But as you haven't got my hint, let up the antes a bit and say that "world without Communism" will be a bit like Brazil.

How could there be progress? Easily enough. There wouldn't be accusations of being a Soviet plant for politicians seeking reforms, there wouldn't be the mass witch hunts of any person with views more liberal than the norm, and reformists can have plenty of other justifications and reasons other than "the fucking commies are doing it."
By your logic, immediate consequence of the fall of communism should have been huge spurt of progressive politics around the world, as anyone "views more liberal than the norm" would not be labelled Soviet agent. I don't see it happening (at least not in the 1st world). Quite opposite, really.

Again, you're falling into the fallacy that because the Soviets did it first, everyone else who did it was inspired by and only by them.
Yes, this approach is not flawless, but it is as good as anything we have in AH area. Take a trend and try to project it into the world without a counter-trend. BTW, I did not say that Soviet example was "the only" driving force, I just assumed it was significant one. Even my assumption that "nobody will go really hungry in non-commie world" speaks for it. There were plenty of really hungry people in the most developed nations of pre-Commie world.

I would not call those lightning, nor would I call them total. Especially when Reaganomics was "spend more, tax less, and revenues will increase" not "kill welfare once and for all."
Reaganomics pretty much killed labour strikes and expansion of the organized labor in the States. There's really no reason why United Steel or GM should have been unionized and IBM should not.

You have quite the taste for hyperbole.
Isn't it a cornerstone of AH? :)

I see a couple of conspiracy sites based on circumstancial evidence and not enough "hard fact." Try again, or at least show me a 'better' one.
Wikipedia article has quite a few references for Italia, including statements of Italian chief spy, made under oath. Hardly "nutter conspiracist musings" to me.
 
I thought I made you a concession by not reviving ghosts of Latin America, Philipines, thailand and other countries which never had misfortune of being communist but could show nothing for it. But as you haven't got my hint, let up the antes a bit and say that "world without Communism" will be a bit like Brazil.
So now your saying that, in a world without the Soviet Union, the world is going to look like a a number of countries who spent several decades under strongmen dictators (eerily close to fascists in their own right) for whom economics was the exception and not the norm, and who were generally installed and kept in power solely in fear of a foreign communist superpower?

That's not a "concession," that's common sense. :rolleyes:


By your logic, immediate consequence of the fall of communism should have been huge spurt of progressive politics around the world, as anyone "views more liberal than the norm" would not be labelled Soviet agent. I don't see it happening (at least not in the 1st world). Quite opposite, really.
Look at your calender. See that date right there? Now look at countries in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Asia, and tell they haven't changed drastically in the last ten, let alone 15, years. If you can tell me that there hasn't been a global shift towards economic and political freedoms, and a laxening of state controls in those countries that haven't undergone velvet revolutions, then you're one in a million. The very fact that the US tolerates the presence of multiple leftist leaders in South America, vocally opposed to the US, is a bloody miracle compared to previous decades.
Yes, this approach is not flawless, but it is as good as anything we have in AH area. Take a trend and try to project it into the world without a counter-trend. BTW, I did not say that Soviet example was "the only" driving force, I just assumed it was significant one. Even my assumption that "nobody will go really hungry in non-commie world" speaks for it. There were plenty of really hungry people in the most developed nations of pre-Commie world.
There is a better approach: you look at trends, and you also look at what such trends have brought about in the past. Assuming a trend acts in a void is amateur AH, and completely ignores the basic concept of the Butterfly Effect. One of the greatest flaws in Stirling's Draka series is how, in his world, no one bothered to worry about the draka until they had half the world continent under their belt.
Reaganomics pretty much killed labour strikes and expansion of the organized labor in the States. There's really no reason why United Steel or GM should have been unionized and IBM should not.
Sure there are, plenty of them. Labor unions lost alot of public trust in the 80's after scandals involving top officials surfaced. Labor unions had more or less already gotten most of the gains they could reasonably expect to get in the best of times, and rising competition from Europe and Asia (what, did you expect that they wouldn't rebuild their own industries post-WW2?) forces companies to be more competitive, and puts pressure on local workers to make concessions or risk having their jobs lost. National labor unions are much weaker the freer trade is, because a labor union can only effect the companies in its country. If a union won't compromise and insists on being more costly than an the world, then they either have to push protectionism through Congress or they have to weaken. The fall of labor is as much the result of world trade as any other factor.
Isn't it a cornerstone of AH? :)
Not in serious debates. Grimm is the textbook case of walking a line between crazy and solid, factual rationals.
Wikipedia article has quite a few references for Italia, including statements of Italian chief spy, made under oath. Hardly "nutter conspiracist musings" to me.
So your one source is the most dubious source alive? I've put death dates for politicians in facebook, so forgive my doubt. I'm still waiting for a good source.
 
So now your saying that, in a world without the Soviet Union, the world is going to look like a a number of countries who spent several decades under strongmen dictators (eerily close to fascists in their own right) for whom economics was the exception and not the norm, and who were generally installed and kept in power solely in fear of a foreign communist superpower?
It would be nice to blame South American ills on vile commies, but for one small technicality. Munroe doctrine had been adopted 100+ years before communism became political force and American meddling in the Latin American affairs (usually to support most cruel warlord who would be best enforcer for American Interests) were well-established tradition by 1917.

Look at your calender. See that date right there? Now look at countries in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Asia, and tell they haven't changed drastically in the last ten, let alone 15, years.
Eastern Europe lost it's safety net completely. As cruel joke goes, chain was lengthened by 2 meters but food bowl was moved 3 meters, although they are allowed to bark to their hearts' content. By the way, does you not realize you're proving my assumption? 3rd world's conditions somewhat improved, 1st world's conditions somewhat worsened, middle ground will be somewhere South of German safety net but North of Bolivian (I hope). So it would be pretty bleak for you 1st world dweller. Exactly as I said.

The very fact that the US tolerates the presence of multiple leftist leaders in South America, vocally opposed to the US, is a bloody miracle compared to previous decades.
Would you care to look at economic reforms introduced by those leftists and not at their flowery "Socialism or Death" logic, you would find that their outrageous commie demands are generally within what we consider birthrights here in 1st world. Universal access to education and health care, no child labor, mining royalties at par with Norwegian or Canadian ones. Truly, truly outrageous! BTW, it's an off-topic, don't you think? I must reiterate, I was talking about 1st world.

Sure there are, plenty of them. Labor unions lost alot of public trust in the 80's after scandals involving top officials surfaced.
C'mon, organized labor had been plagued with scandals from the very beginning. Outsiders, anti-establishment and often outlaws, labor leaders forged tactical or strategical alliances with mafia for ages, and it did not prevent organized labor from controlling majority of the American labor market in 1950s, when Soviet Allure was at it's height. Saying that shady dealings suddenly became insurmountable obstacle is a little bit weird, don't you think?

Labor unions had more or less already gotten most of the gains they could reasonably expect to get in the best of times, and rising competition from Europe and Asia (what, did you expect that they wouldn't rebuild their own industries post-WW2?) forces companies to be more competitive, and puts pressure on local workers to make concessions or risk having their jobs lost. National labor unions are much weaker the freer trade is, because a labor union can only effect the companies in its country. If a union won't compromise and insists on being more costly than an the world, then they either have to push protectionism through Congress or they have to weaken. The fall of labor is as much the result of world trade as any other factor.
Well, isn't this school of thinking applicable in the Shiny New World without communism. Wouldn't ruling elites in any country do their level best to keep those incompetitive unions in check? And such a drag on competitiveness as universal access to health care? Exactly what I said.

So your one source is the most dubious source alive? I've put death dates for politicians in facebook, so forgive my doubt. I'm still waiting for a good source.
WP is far from being The Pillar of Absolute Truth, but it's "Leftist" part is being kept in check by "no one is clement to one's enemies" principle. It means that pretty much any content casting shadow on The Western Civilization or portraying lefrism in favourable light is allowed to stay there only if supported by very reliable sources. So I would not believe "Stalin Ate Babies for Breakfast" statement there, but I would believe "Reagan tacitly approved Iran-Contra".
 
It would be nice to blame South American ills on vile commies, but for one small technicality. Munroe doctrine had been adopted 100+ years before communism became political force and American meddling in the Latin American affairs (usually to support most cruel warlord who would be best enforcer for American Interests) were well-established tradition by 1917.
Strangely, though, economically incompetent dictators weren't installed and kept in power by the US or Britain before WW1. Almost the opposite, really, because when your priority is keeping your economic interests safe as opposed to keeping a country from simply going Red, you tend not to support people who will lessen the value of that market.
Eastern Europe lost it's safety net completely. As cruel joke goes, chain was lengthened by 2 meters but food bowl was moved 3 meters, although they are allowed to bark to their hearts' content.
Strangely, a simple search disproves that European Europe has "lost it's safety net completely." Again, hyperbole makes a rotten plank to stand on. Clicky

This source not only goes over various parts of welfare in Eastern AND western Europe, but also notes development patterns of welfare. Such as how Denmark established universal pensions in 1981, which grew and spread to other countries.


By the way, does you not realize you're proving my assumption? 3rd world's conditions somewhat improved, 1st world's conditions somewhat worsened, middle ground will be somewhere South of German safety net but North of Bolivian (I hope). So it would be pretty bleak for you 1st world dweller. Exactly as I said.
Counterpoint: A continuation of colonialism will broaden, not lessen, the divide between rich and poor regions of the world. Europe, having not undergone at least WW2 and having seen its industry and economic systems destroyed, will be richer, though maintaining colonies will be a constant cost. Colonies, a majority of the world, closed to foreign investment and still under the rule of European countries, will be poorer. Countries that are independent will have fewer markets to go into, but will generally have good trade between them. Countries that are in a single sphere of interests will see their main economic ties dominated by one country, but have a stability and growth not found in the most contested countries. Countries like China, with many spheres of interest, will be undergoing constant tensions as the Great Powers fight to keep and expand their interests.

Really, it's useless to "average" what a world would look like, because even OTL is horribly lopsided. "us" 1st world dwellers (and that includes you, if you actually live in Canada) will likely be comparitively richer ITTL, while places like Africa and Asia will easily be poorer.
Would you care to look at economic reforms introduced by those leftists and not at their flowery "Socialism or Death" logic, you would find that their outrageous commie demands are generally within what we consider birthrights here in 1st world. Universal access to education and health care, no child labor, mining royalties at par with Norwegian or Canadian ones. Truly, truly outrageous!
Let's take Venezuela as an example. Before Chavez came to power, some things that "we 1st world" take for granted would be a growing economy with manageable inflation, a working system of checks and balances, moderate political corruption, increased child literacy, food on the grocery shelves (well, that one actually was there before), no child labor, and a working social system to help care for the poor.

After Chavez, some things that Venezuela still doesn't have that we would expect include: no child labor (FARC, minor buisnesses, and drug runners still all use children where they can), a growing economy with manageable inflation (instead of one of the highest in the world and a falling oil output), a working system of checks and balances and manageable corruption (instead of incrediable increases in administrative incompetence, cronyism, and government bias against dissenters, along with requiring a threat of military action to keep from forging election result), increased child literacy (the Chavez government statistics were found to be largely falsified, and the Mission system Chavez started to handle such things has turned into an costly and ignomious failure), food on the grocery shelves, and a working social system (which, based around the Mission system, has largely failed).

Having cared to look beyond the Death to America cries and look at the results of what happens when such a person is not only in power but has access to one of the largest wallets in the world, I can see the results of that rhetoric, and few of them are significantly better while many other areas are worse.

C'mon, organized labor had been plagued with scandals from the very beginning. Outsiders, anti-establishment and often outlaws, labor leaders forged tactical or strategical alliances with mafia for ages, and it did not prevent organized labor from controlling majority of the American labor market in 1950s, when Soviet Allure was at it's height. Saying that shady dealings suddenly became insurmountable obstacle is a little bit weird, don't you think?
Not at all. Presidents were using the FBI to spy on political opponents for decades, but when Nixon got caught at the wrong time, the results were explosive.
Well, isn't this school of thinking applicable in the Shiny New World without communism. Wouldn't ruling elites in any country do their level best to keep those incompetitive unions in check? And such a drag on competitiveness as universal access to health care? Exactly what I said.
Not really. In a world with closed markets due to colonialism, high tariffs to colonial-made goods are going to lessen the competing labor sources, not expand them as in OTL. With tariffs to keep Asian and European goods out, American unions are going to have a much easier time keeping their wins from management than they have OTL, where they must compete with Indian, Chinese, French, and other workers. (Of course, the modern European welfare is state-centered, not business centered like in the US, which in itself could very easily be butterflied away).
 
Strangely, though, economically incompetent dictators weren't installed and kept in power by the US or Britain before WW1.
You've made my day. I understamd that we're at AH website, but saying that Cabbages and Kings is set in communist times is over the top, isn't it?

Strangely, a simple search disproves that European Europe has "lost it's safety net completely." Again, hyperbole makes a rotten plank to stand on. Clicky
I did open your linky. It could have been better for you if I did not. Book says that Bulgarians had been ruled by Ottoman Empire in late 19 century and that Poland had been divided between Russians and Austrians (Prussia is nowhere to be found). It pretty much killed it's credibility for me :(

Counterpoint: A continuation of colonialism will broaden, not lessen, the divide between rich and poor regions of the world. Europe, having not undergone at least WW2 and having seen its industry and economic systems destroyed, will be richer, though maintaining colonies will be a constant cost. Colonies, a majority of the world, closed to foreign investment and still under the rule of European countries, will be poorer.
I'm not sure that colonies will survive in this world, as USA were pretty cool toward the idea. And they ARE already 800-pound gorilla at POD.

Really, it's useless to "average" what a world would look like, because even OTL is horribly lopsided. "us" 1st world dwellers (and that includes you, if you actually live in Canada) will likely be comparitively richer ITTL, while places like Africa and Asia will easily be poorer.
1st world will or will not be comparatively richer ITTL, it will depend on Americans, but it likely will be much more unequal, with huge gap between haves and the rest of us.

Not at all. Presidents were using the FBI to spy on political opponents for decades, but when Nixon got caught at the wrong time, the results were explosive.
Would this revelation as disastrous for American presidency as you claim revelation of mafia links was for unions, we would not see the institution in its current all-powerful form today, it should have been wrecked. It does not, so your logic must have some flaws.

In a world with closed markets due to colonialism, high tariffs to colonial-made goods are going to lessen the competing labor sources, not expand them as in OTL. With tariffs to keep Asian and European goods out, American unions are going to have a much easier time keeping their wins from management than they have OTL, where they must compete with Indian, Chinese, French, and other workers. (Of course, the modern European welfare is state-centered, not business centered like in the US, which in itself could very easily be butterflied away).
As I said, Americans had their powerful say in the de-colonisation OTL. And I don't see how could they resist pressure of the "free market without protectionism" ITTL after they worked so long and hard to fight it.
 
Well, it is like saying that Napoleon ruled over Europe in the mid-19 cenury.
No, it isn't that bad.

Mostly because the Ottomans did rule over modern-day Bulgaria after 1850, so, if late means later half, it is true, whereas your Napoleon example wouldn't be true (since he was out of power by 1825).
 
And don't get me started on raise of NAzism sponsored by corporations as bullwark against communism.

Explain please. TY.

Also, you guys are making my brain scream. You both bring up valid points-I think the fallen example of a USSR that had killed British, French German and American (? did they not fight USSR in this scenario?) might have been a more effective cudgel for McCarthy-like peoples than a live USSR, with all of its evils carefully hidden behind an Iron Curtain, ever was. But the fall of Communism doesn't necessarily mean the fall of Social Democracy. I could see a lot of commentators pointing out that "look! this is what happens when a cruel elite rules! the only difference was who the elite was! communism doesn't work! rule-by-industrialists doesn't work! vote social democrat!" It's really hard to say which side will come out the better, but I think Europe-in the form of a Quadruple Entente of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, in control of a prostrate Russia, would be a lot more powerful than in OTL.

This is the point where Canadian Goose tells me my mistakes, LOL.
 
Last edited:
Seeing people bumping this thread I decided to chime in once more ...

Explain please. TY.
Read on beginning of nazism. Even Wikipedia does reasonably good job describing linkage between Nazi and big corporations, with wealth of data avaliable.

I think the fallen example of a USSR that had killed British, French German and American (? did they not fight USSR in this scenario?) might have been a more effective cudgel for McCarthy-like peoples than a live USSR, with all of its evils carefully hidden behind an Iron Curtain, ever was.
I do not think I agree with this statement. McCarthyism was a byproduct of the Red Scare - very serious paranoia among post-WWII Western elites who feared Communism attractive enough to take over with combined attack both from within and from without. I do not think a lot of ppl would consider commies sufficient threat without foreign (Soviet) support.

But the fall of Communism doesn't necessarily mean the fall of Social Democracy. I could see a lot of commentators pointing out that "look! this is what happens when a cruel elite rules! the only difference was who the elite was! communism doesn't work! rule-by-industrialists doesn't work! vote social democrat!"
You may be right, although, as I've said earlier, failure of the Communism did not bring the wave of soc-dem reforms IOTL. Quite the opposite, even regimes self-branded as soc-dem around the world (Britain's New Labor being the best example), tend to move right. Blair would have been crucified by 1950s labour movement.

I think Europe-in the form of a Quadruple Entente of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, in control of a prostrate Russia, would be a lot more powerful than in OTL.
I am not sure. Even victorious Europe would blead a lot, and Marshall Plan (generated IOTL by USA's desire to build friendly Europe to use against USSR) would not arrive here. But eventually they can prevail.

This is the point where Canadian Goose tells me my mistakes, LOL.
Am I that scary? :)
 
Top